Three things have been crystal clear during this entire health reform debate:
a) President Obama will sign a bill at some point
b) He'll make serious compromises to do so
c) Many people will be dismayed by (a), (b), or both
Perhaps the anti-reform forces will manage to thwart a bill, but I doubt it. This speech marks the beginning of Obama's end game, and look for him to build momentum in the coming days.
As this process has progressed, we've learned many sobering lessons: that the rightwing noise machine is alive and well; that old media can hold its own against new media; and that the Democratic majority is tenuous.
But most importantly, we've learned that conservatives are more eager to make war than to provide health coverage for all Americans.
The clip of Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.) calling the president a liar will no doubt be played incessantly. It encapsulates so much of what is wrong with the Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-Coulter-Cheney-Bush wing of the Republican Party: ready and willing to send our troops to battle, but unwilling to work with Democrats to address the big issues facing our country and our world.
We're all focused on the health reform battle, but I've argued that Obama's presidency will not be determined by it. Rather, his presidency will be judged by how sharply he breaks with the transgressions of the Bush years, how boldly he rebukes the hate-mongering of radio talkers, how willing he is to adhere to core Democratic principles.
In July I wrote:
Some form of health care reform may pass -- the contours may or may not be in place by the August recess (a deadline that has become a distraction rather than an impetus). Stakeholders across the health spectrum may or may not like the final compromise. Pollsters and pundits and press may or may not express approval. But either way, this is not the defining moment or issue of Obama's presidency.
There will be many more watersheds, many unforeseen events, many highs and lows, many poll dips and spikes. In the end, Barack Obama's presidency will be defined by the extent to which he attempts to right America's (badly adrift) moral ship. Providing universal quality affordable health care is only a part of that process, albeit a significant one.
President Obama just showed us why he commands such admiration and respect. This is the Obama we want to see advancing principles and values that matter to progressives: fairness, justice, equality, peace.
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
And your point is . . . ?
This is par for the course!
'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby' Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early according to NHS guidelines They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment. She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit. She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over. A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter". ' She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.' She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived. more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html#ixzz0QhxDUWSz No wonder they have higher infant mortality. Did you know the wonderful industrialized UK believes a baby feels pain at 23 weeks
I read that article, and it says quite clearly in it that :
"However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates." In other words, in the doctors experiences, almost all babies like this die no matter what they do. It's not just Britain. If you dig around, you can find similar stories in the US.
Also you say, "No wonder they (Britain) have higher infant mortality." Not true.
This is from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/) about infant mortality rates in the world's countries:
United Kingdom: 4.85 (deaths/1,000 live births) - # 32 on the list
United States 6.26 - #46 on the list
Canada, with it's 'horrible socialist' system, is at 5.04
The top three are:
Singapore 2.31
Bermuda 2.46
Sweden 2.75
The truth is despite how much America is spending, its citizens are NOT getting the best care in the world. People can insist all they want that America is NUMBER ONE!, and invent 'facts' to support their argument, but that doesn't change things a bit. There is nothing socialist, fascist, communist, yada yada, about an elected government wanting to chnage this. And if you had actually listened to the President, he said REPEATEDLY that the primary delivery system for healthcare should still be PRIVATE interests. What part of this do you not understand?
Well, lets reduce this "Big Government", and its "Government Takeover", and its "Government Spending" and see how they will do any of these activities without Government involvement.
You know exactly what we are against... redistribution of wealth. The constitution is very specific and limited regarding what it's citizens could be taxed for specifically to guard against redistribution of wealth. The Constitution protects property rights and the fruits of my labor is my property. You can make a case to tax for almost anything that the community has an opportunity to share in equally or a service that everyone can benefit from equally, but that's not what any of you are talking about. It's about redistributing wealth from one person to another period.
You are only for choice when it comes to abortion & gay rights. You're not for choice in any other situations. Don't try to make a claim that your for choice on health care, you want single payer. School vouchers, what car I drive, light bulbs, freedom to negotiate my own terms with my employer without a union, a private option for Social Security, etc. e
You say, "You know exactly what we are against... redistribution of wealth."
Are you? The rich are totally interested in the re-distribution of wealth, out of your pocket into theirs by any means they can get away with. Yet you are against any attempts to try to reverse the flow.
I'm glad you're free to negotiate on your own terms with your employer. Did they give $8 an hour, or $9. Do they work you 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, without safety equipment or breaks like they used to do before unions were organized to protect workers from such abuses?
I'm glad your ok with your kids being able to play with lead painted toys, or that you can eat foods or use drugs that have all sorts of dangerous additives, like they did before government regulation came along. Yup, that's a real man's freedom.
That's what you're glad of. Me, I'm glad that most Americans are decent people and there's actually very few like you.
PS We volunteer and donate to charity at a rate 100X more than liberals. Jesus would not have advocated for the poor by forcing others at the tip of a Roman spear. Jesus would advocate a "will you provide for" approach, not a "you will provide for" approach.
Proof? Nah, that would ruin your argument.
And "Jesus would not have advocated for the poor by forcing others at the tip of a Roman spear."
No, probably not, but I have no doubt that he would tell those that had plenty that they were sinning if they refused to help the poor. Until the fact that many Americans (an I'm not talking 'illegals", but full citizens) die because they can't get adequate coverage, is changed I think Jesus would have a dim view about how righteous America really is.
On Sept. 7th BHO accused the Republicans of not having any kind of answer for obamacare - then just two days later, he proposed using some of their ideas. Is he confused or what?
Two days ago there were 47M Americans without health insurance - now there are 30M... I guess BHO decided not to count the illegal invaders...
You mentioned Bush created the war. How short your memory is, that you forgot that at the time, everyone believed that Iraq had WMD, and voted in favor of it - but then Kerry voted against it...
So the president was called a liar... I guess it's okay if the libs do it, but not the Right. I guess you libs are of the opinion that it's worse than calling people "mobsters", "political terrorists", "Astroturf", "nazis" and "un-American". Double standard much?
BHO says obamacare will be deficit neutral, and "only" cost $900B, even tho the CBO says different. He's the same one who said unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, said the 10-year debt would grow by $7T (it's projected to grow by $9T) and thought the $1B cash-for-clunkers would last until November.... Anyone have any confidence in any of his predictions?
I have to give credit to BHO for a good speech. He does have a gift. However, in order to get obamacare right, he needs to add tort reform, nation-wide insurance markets and get rid of the illegal invaders. Maybe there is still hope...
Really? You'd tell BHO to stop blaming President Bush for the economy??? Bravo!
Good idea! Maybe EVERYONE should stop blaming Bush for everything...
He tried that, he called up his brown shirts to physically attack old people at town halls. It didn't work.